论文部分内容阅读
唐宋时期买卖契约与借贷契约在人保与物保的选择上表现出了较为明显的倾向。在买卖契约中,由于双方当事人的交易多为即时性交易,故人保条款并不是每契必具。在不动产买卖契约中,保人身份固定化,保证责任主要是卖方所有权瑕疵担保,关注的不是物的瑕疵,保证责任具有单一性与单向性。在动产买卖契约中,保人身份较为多样化,保证责任除了所有权瑕疵担保之外,还有履行保证。而对于借贷契约而言,虽然在一些契约中出现了物保条款,但囿于可供选择作为物保的标的物的缺乏以及物保本身对债务人使用物的限制,人们更加倾向于选择人保。对比买卖契约与借贷契约,人保在借贷契约中的地位与作用更为重要,这与借贷契约双方当事人权利义务的履行特点相关。
The trading contract and loan contract in the Tang and Song Dynasties showed a clear tendency in the choice of PICC and PICC. In the sale and purchase contract, as both parties transactions are mostly real-time transactions, so the terms of the PICC are not always required. In the contract of sale and purchase of real estate, the identity of the insurer is fixed. The guarantee responsibility is mainly the guarantee of the seller ’s ownership. The concern is not the flaw of the property, but the guarantee responsibility is single and unidirectional. In the movable property sale and purchase contract, the identity of the sponsor is diversified, and the guarantee responsibility includes the performance guarantee in addition to the guarantee of the defective ownership. In the case of loan contracts, although some clauses on the existence of the clauses of pawnshops exist, they are more inclined to choose PICC because of the lack of the subject matter that is available as a kind of physical protection and the limitation on personal belongings of the debtor. Contrast buying and selling contracts and loan contracts, PICC’s position and role in the loan contract is more important, which is related to the performance characteristics of the rights and obligations of both parties to the loan contract.